PDA

View Full Version : Xykon's Strategy Adapted to a Real D&D Game [OOTS #448 Spoilers]



mikeejimbo
2007-05-05, 01:01 PM
I believe this is more fitting in this forum than the OOTS forum, because I want to focus on his strategy in general, as opposed to a discussion of the comic itself.

Now, most people agree: A bouncy-ball with a Symbol of Insanity wouldn't work. They do have various reasons, for example, it's moving too fast to see, and it's being use offensively.

So, I challenge the forum! Figure out a way to use Symbol of Insanity in a similar manner, in a way that would fly with a DM.

Here's my first thought:

Cast it on a Kender's (tm) shirt. (From Dragonlance - they're like hyperactive halflings and enjoy "borrowing" things.) Tell him that all the soldiers over there (that is, the enemies) have lots of shiny things. Watch hilarity ensue.

AmberVael
2007-05-05, 01:11 PM
Actually, his bouncing ball idea would work very well.

Symbol of Insanity works as Symbol of Death, except that once triggered, it remains active for 10 minutes, and it is insanity.

This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface. When triggered, a symbol of death slays one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150.
All he needs to do is trigger it, and once that happens it doesn't matter if you look at it or not- as long as you are within 60ft, you're hit.
Now...

As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune.
We can assume that Xykon is good enough not to be affected by his own spell, so all he has to do is touch the rune (which he did) and then toss the bouncy ball.
Anyone who comes within 60ft for 10 minutes will be affected.
*bounce bounce bounce*

ChomZ
2007-05-05, 01:12 PM
what if you wrote it on a rock and tossed it in there saying something like 'hope this works' to peak their curiosity?? then they might go over and read it..

or you could put it on some really big thing.. like a flag/banner that you've suddenly placed over your head

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 01:17 PM
what if you wrote it on a rock and tossed it in there saying something like 'hope this works' to peak their curiosity?? then they might go over and read it..

or you could put it on some really big thing.. like a flag/banner that you've suddenly placed over your head

One of my players tried something similar with explosive runes. The foe (a vampire) was pounding on them pretty hard, so I allowed it.

Ramza00
2007-05-05, 01:21 PM
We can assume that Xykon is good enough not to be affected by his own spell, so all he has to do is touch the rune (which he did) and then toss the bouncy ball.
Anyone who comes within 60ft for 10 minutes will be affected.
*bounce bounce bounce*

Xykon is undead
Symbol of Insanity is mind affecting.

Now connect the dots :smallwink:

AmberVael
2007-05-05, 01:22 PM
Xykon is undead
Symbol of Insanity is mind affecting.

Now connect the dots :smallwink:
Ah yes... I was too busy figuring out the other mechanics to work that part out. :smallredface:

So yeah, that was an awesome strategy.

Ramza00
2007-05-05, 01:29 PM
Costs 5,000 gp though, that is expensive, great for a one time thing.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-05, 01:32 PM
5,000 GP? You're saying that like it's alot. For the caster level, you could just maximize a Shivering Touch and go dragon hunting.

ChomZ
2007-05-05, 01:36 PM
Xykon is the undead huge leveled caster that is the head of an army.. I think 5000 gp would be fairly easily come by

tis_tom
2007-05-05, 01:37 PM
Wait, surely it only effects you if you're looking at it? If it's covered up or not within your line of sight -before- effecting you then it wouldn't affect you even if you were within a foot of it. Maybe the high wisdom scores of their's meant their spot skill was high enough to see the rune properly on a hurtling bouncy ball?! lol

Ramza00
2007-05-05, 01:38 PM
It isn't something you want to cast multiple times per day, or even once a day unless you really need it due to the component. In the example Xykon used it for it is perfect. He doesn't lay siege to castles full of plaadins everyday.

Attilargh
2007-05-05, 01:40 PM
Anyone who comes within 60ft for 10 minutes will be affected.
*bounce bounce bounce*
Per caster level. That's fun for at least a couple of hours.

tis_tom: Sorry, radius. 'Sides:

As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune.

You can also set special triggering limitations of your own. These can be as simple or elaborate as you desire. Special conditions for triggering a symbol of death can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment, but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, and hit points don’t qualify.
Ergo, Xykon could easily have placed a trigger of "in a square occupied by the Symbol".

*bounce bounce bounce*

mikeejimbo
2007-05-05, 01:41 PM
It isn't something you want to cast multiple times per day, or even once a day unless you really need it due to the component. In the example Xykon used it for it is perfect. He doesn't lay siege to castles full of plaadins everyday.

Heh, he'd probably like to, though.

I do agree though, it is a perfect use for it.

Yakk
2007-05-05, 01:42 PM
*nod*, he didn't need a bouncing ball, other than it giving him the ability to throw it. 60' is a pretty large radius.

The effects on a large number of troops is interesting:


01-10 Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attack is not possible).
11-20 Act normally.
21-50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51-70 Flee away from caster at top possible speed.
71-100 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self).

In addition, if attacked, the person counter-attacks the next round. This last bit it what makes it all spiral out of control.

Not quite as fast as it happened in OOTS, but pretty damn fast.

Person_Man
2007-05-05, 01:48 PM
Actually, I think people forget that it also allows a Fort Save, and that most melee types have a strong Fort Save, and Paladins get their Cha to Saves, and even if they fail you might just stand there doing nothing.

I don't think its possible. And that's a good thing.

Jasdoif
2007-05-05, 01:51 PM
Actually, I think people forget that it also allows a Fort Save, and that most melee types have a strong Fort Save, and Paladins get their Cha to Saves, and even if they fail you might just stand there doing nothing.

I don't think its possible. And that's a good thing.Symbol of Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfInsanity.htm) has a Will Save, it's one of the differences between it and Symbol of Death that's noted up top.

Tokiko Mima
2007-05-05, 01:57 PM
Actually, his bouncing ball idea would work very well.

Symbol of Insanity works as Symbol of Death, except that once triggered, it remains active for 10 minutes, and it is insanity.

All he needs to do is trigger it, and once that happens it doesn't matter if you look at it or not- as long as you are within 60ft, you're hit.
Now...

We can assume that Xykon is good enough not to be affected by his own spell, so all he has to do is touch the rune (which he did) and then toss the bouncy ball.
Anyone who comes within 60ft for 10 minutes will be affected.
*bounce bounce bounce*

Aren't the symbols meant as Trap spells, and not to be used offensively? I can see you putting them on book and triggering when the book opens, but I don't think the spell was meant so that the caster can trigger and therefore offensively use / throw / hit someone with it. Otherwise it becomes an AoE, like a same level Incendiary Cloud, only with permanent insanity attached instead of just 4d6 damage.

It doesn't have anything to do with Xykon being good enough to avoid his own spell. He's the caster, and is immune to spells he casts pretty much by default. The issue is he is using a trap spell offensively, and it just doesn't work that way. Where is that picture with the Morbo saying "EXPLOSIVE RUNES/MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY?"


Figure out a way to use Symbol of Insanity in a similar manner, in a way that would fly with a DM.

V has shown plenty of examples of the right way to do this. If you scrawl the symbol on the wall as you're escaping, that's a good way to hinder pursuit. The problem is you need ten minutes to cast the spell, so it's not something you want to have to do in a hurry.

If Xykon wanted to use it in the right way, he could have inscribed it on a scroll, said the scroll was his confession and surrender, and all O-chul needed to do was sign it and he would call off his troops and face trial as proscribed by the laws of Azure City.

Yechezkiel
2007-05-05, 02:02 PM
5,000gp 25cp... IF he got the color he wanted on the first try.


Costs 5,000 gp though, that is expensive, great for a one time thing.

mikeejimbo
2007-05-05, 02:04 PM
If Xykon wanted to use it in the right way, he could have inscribed it on a scroll, said the scroll was his confession and surrender, and all O-chul needed to do was sign it and he would call off his troops and face trial as proscribed by the laws of Azure City.

That's a very good idea, actually. Paladins are trusting enough for it to work. And as soon as O-Chuul read it, it would activate and everyone within 60' would be affected, if I understand correctly?


5,000gp 25cp... IF he got the color he wanted on the first try.

Aww, I wanted the blue symbol of insanity ball, but I got the red one!

goat
2007-05-05, 02:04 PM
Will save according to the SRD.

Depending on how high level the paladins are, I could see it affecting a lot of them.

If 30% are attacking the others, then there's going to be a lot who are automatically defending, and even the ones who are acting normally will be changing each round. Then you've got the problem of runners, who could leave trails of carnage through the castle.

Now, if the symbol is requiring repeated saves every round from the ones who've saved previously...

I could see it being fairly chaotic, but probably not THAT chaotic. It could quite easily mess them up.

Draz74
2007-05-05, 02:10 PM
To sum up: Symbol of Insanity on a bouncy ball is a bad tactic in general, for a number of reasons:

CON: It allows a Will save.
CON: It has a hefty material component.
PRO: The only good things about the spell are that it is at least a pretty harsh save-or-suck, plus it's incredibly sadistic.
PRO: If you're going to use the rather bad spell at all, then putting it on a bouncy ball is at least a good way to increase its area of effect, since it will move around and people tend to like looking at bouncy balls near them.
CON: But using the bouncy ball as a way to deliver the spell means that it could affect you (the caster) as well as the intended victims.

Now, let's look at the specific situation here.

Xykon is immune to his own Symbol by being undead. He is fighting a bunch of mooks who, compared to him, are mostly very low-level (low Will saves). Yet in spite of this being a mook battle, it's also an important enough battle for him, personally, to be worth the material component as long as he gets to be extra-sadistic.

In other words, in this case it's a GREAT tactic.

Still don't know why a Sorcerer would ever use a Spell Known slot on a spell like this for specific, rare situations ... oh well. It's all for the plot.

EDIT: About the paladins' level. Judging by how Hinjo fared in his duel with Miko, we estimated that he was about Level 9 or 10. And he's the second-highest level character in the Sapphire Guard (after Miko), according to Miko.

O-Chul, judging by his interactions with Hinjo and his clear command position in the throne room, is probably third. He's probably level 8 or so.

Most of the Paladins Xykon hit with his Symbol are probably Levels 2-7, then. Even the best of them probably have a Will save of maybe +9. The DC on Xykon's Symbol is probably 25 at the least. No wonder it worked so well!

Tokiko Mima
2007-05-05, 02:14 PM
I think something I don't understand is how a Paladin's immunity to fear play's into this. Part of the spell makes you voluntarily flee from the caster at your top speed. That's consistant with the effect of a fear type spell (I can't think of any effect that does that other than fear, anyway) which Paladins are immune to.

So in this case would Paladins be immune to this part of the spell, or is this a way to get around Paladin fear immunity?

goat
2007-05-05, 02:21 PM
Actually, symbol of insanity has no HP or HD limit.

mikeejimbo
2007-05-05, 02:21 PM
Still don't know why a Sorcerer would ever use a Spell Known slot on a spell like this for specific, rare situations ... oh well. It's all for the plot.

Well, he's had lairs before. He had to hole up in the dungeon while he worked on the gate, and he has that tower. He has to stay here for a while too, so maybe he'll protect it all with such a symbol.

But protection is a conventional use of the symbol.

How would inscribing it on your shield work, while I'm on the topic?

Edit: OK, someone else's shield. Don't get picky :P

AmberVael
2007-05-05, 02:25 PM
CON: It affects a limited number of Hit Points' worth of creatures.
CON: It has a hefty material component.
1) Insanity is not affected by HP amount, unlike symbol of death.
2) 5000 GP for a room full of paladins is quite worth it, especially at level 15 (Which is when you could first cast it)

Draz74
2007-05-05, 02:43 PM
2) 5000 GP for a room full of paladins is quite worth it, especially at level 15 (Which is when you could first cast it)

Right ... I said that, later in my post. :smallcool: At the beginning of the post I was talking about "in general"; later I address :xykon:'s specific situation.

Indon
2007-05-05, 02:46 PM
So, an undead could, say, wear a helmet with a Symbol of Insanity inscribed in the inside (Activation condition of touch), cast Permanency on the symbol, and become Ye Olde Cthulhue, at a cost of 5,000 GP and 4,000 XP?

Hmm.

Rad
2007-05-05, 02:48 PM
Actually the RAW would make the trick work as long as it is touch activated (and Xykon activated it). In that case the front line of paladins would notice that they have to make a save, even if they passed.

More generally, you can make a tablet with a touch-activated symbol (maybe a permanent one for reuse of the components), cast protection from spells on someone, have him go in the middle of your enemies and trigger it.
That would also work with other trap-like spells too.

I guess that this is a problem of the spells themselves that are conceived to affect an entire party when the rogue fails the check, but to keep some objectivity do not restrict the effect to "the one who triggers the spell and his allies" or something like that. If I were the DM I this would be my house rule.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-05, 03:18 PM
A small ball is not a prominent location. The spell should have failed right out.

Were-Sandwich
2007-05-05, 03:20 PM
A small ball is not a prominent location. The spell should have failed right out.

A LARGE ball however...

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-05, 03:30 PM
A small ball is not a prominent location. The spell should have failed right out.

How do you know it wasn't a prominent location at the time of the casting? He could have cast it while floating in the air, thus making it the only location, ergo, the most prominent one.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-05, 03:43 PM
Actually, you don't need to be dead to pull it off. As the caster, you're immune to your own symbols - period. You can even take some time to make as many people as you like immune. However, you very explicity can't trigger them yourself.

Mind you - Quickened Shadow Conjouration can put a critter of arbitrary alignment in a location of your choosing as a swift action for an 8th level slot. Scribe the Symbol on something where the Shadow critter can trigger it easily, and presto.

Even better, of course, is a Permanencied Symbol, with an activation condition of "as soon as possible", "always" or the like - on your cloak / Breastplate / Shirt / Shield / whatever (prefferably more than one). Anyone you didn't attune at casting within 60 feet makes a save. Downtime: 10 minutes. At caster level 17th (minimum for Xyklon), in a three hour cycle (180 minutes) the thing is down for a mere 10 minutes (170 active plus 10 minute listed recharge time). With two on different cycles, there's a 20 minute segment where only one is active, and the rest of the time, it's two.

martyboy74
2007-05-05, 03:45 PM
I think that that rule is more design to stop people from casting it on invisible signs. Or avoiding having players cast it all over themselves, for 'protection' during a grapple.

Tokiko Mima
2007-05-05, 03:45 PM
The design intention of a Trap spell is that someone in the party do something they shouldn't that causes a trap to affect everyone nearby. Generally this means that a well prepared rogue would have a chance of detecting and avoiding the spell beforehand.

Xykon is using his superball in a manner that turns the Symbol into an AoE, and if that was the case the spell would need to be powered down to be consistant with other 8th level AoE spells, not a 9th level spells with the addition of triggers and a duration (ala Wail of the Banshee (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wailOfTheBanshee.htm), but with 20' more radius, permanent insanity instead of death, and a 10 minute/caster level duration.)

Seriously, if you allowed your players to do this then what makes Wail of the Banshee, Wierd, or Meteor Swarm more powerful than this and qualifies them for 9th level slots? Symbol of Insanity abused this way is perfect for descimating large groups of pretty much anything. It's not meant to be used, nor is it balanced as an attack spell.

AmberVael
2007-05-05, 03:51 PM
A small ball is not a prominent location. The spell should have failed right out.
I fail to see how a small ball flying across the room and attracting everyone's attention is not in plain sight and in a prominent location.

martyboy74
2007-05-05, 04:19 PM
I fail to see how a small ball flying across the room and attracting everyone's attention is not in plain sight and in a prominent location.

Actually, re-reading the description, you're right. It goes into a 'dormant' state when covered. However, when the BBEG lich pulls out a pink bouncy ball, I'd say that that's pretty unusual.

AmberVael
2007-05-05, 04:53 PM
However, when the BBEG lich pulls out a pink bouncy ball, I'd say that that's pretty unusual.
But also undeniably kickass.

*Lich poker night*

Lich 1: So... what have you guys been up to? *attempts to steal a look at Lich 2's cards*

Lich 2: *turns cards away from Lich 1, accidently allowing Lich 3 to peer at them instead* Oh, just killing some obnoxious paladin. Heh. You should have seen the look on his face when I turned him inside out.

Lich 3: Oh that's nothing- I turned three warrior's swords to snakes and watched them kill each other. I'll raise, by the way.

Lich 1: What about you, Lich 4?

Lich 4: Me? Oh, I just took out an army with a pink bouncing ball.

Lich 1-3: *gape*

mikeejimbo
2007-05-05, 10:33 PM
Lich 1: So... what have you guys been up to? *attempts to steal a look at Lich 2's cards*

Lich 2: *turns cards away from Lich 1, accidently allowing Lich 3 to peer at them instead*


I would so inscribe explosive runes on my cards.

Ramza00
2007-05-05, 10:43 PM
I would so inscribe explosive runes on my cards.

No mixing multiple universe concepts with the same character. Gambit isn't allowed to be a lich :smallwink:

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 12:31 AM
I would so inscribe explosive runes on my cards.Do note that you're closer to the cards than the person actually reading them, someone else has them in the next hand, you might be that someone when another does the same, and everyone can see you casting on the cards.

mikeejimbo
2007-05-06, 12:43 AM
Do note that you're closer to the cards than the person actually reading them, someone else has them in the next hand, you might be that someone when another does the same, and everyone can see you casting on the cards.

Well, what I mean is if I was the host and providing the cards. I would cast explosive runes on a couple of them, and then shuffle them. So you never know when someone will just blow up. Great fun for everyone. And sure, I have just as much a chance to explode, but I'd have my phylactery and a dead body in a safe place, just in case. I imagine so would they. Heck, if I was a lich, a lot of pranks I'd pull on my friends would involve destroying them.

Marius
2007-05-06, 01:49 AM
So, an undead could, say, wear a helmet with a Symbol of Insanity inscribed in the inside (Activation condition of touch), cast Permanency on the symbol, and become Ye Olde Cthulhue, at a cost of 5,000 GP and 4,000 XP?

Hmm.

You don't even have to be undead! Just be sure to cast "Mind Blank" every day.

FdL
2007-05-06, 02:02 AM
Far fetched, IMHO the writer is taking a stab at people like you who think it's the kind of thing that would work.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 02:10 AM
I fail to see how a small ball flying across the room and attracting everyone's attention is not in plain sight and in a prominent location.
Because it isn't a single location; it's mobile. Besides that, it's tiny; how could they read it?

Beleriphon
2007-05-06, 04:21 AM
Far fetched, IMHO the writer is taking a stab at people like you who think it's the kind of thing that would work.

Perhaps, but I suspect that this post explains Xykon's logic.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2542648&postcount=88

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 04:30 AM
Because it isn't a single location; it's mobile. Besides that, it's tiny; how could they read it?


How do you know it wasn't a prominent location at the time of the casting? He could have cast it while floating in the air, thus making it the only location, ergo, the most prominent one.

Quoting myself is bad, yes, but you ignored it. The fact that it's mobile is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that it's a prominent location when the spell is cast.

Setra
2007-05-06, 04:55 AM
Because it isn't a single location; it's mobile. Besides that, it's tiny; how could they read it?
I don't think they have to read it so much as just see it.

I could be wrong.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 05:17 AM
I ignored it because it's wrong. It must always be placed in plain sight. Once he placed it out of plain sight, i.e. in his cloak, it would immediately cease to function and end the spell.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-06, 05:36 AM
"Covering or hiding the rune renders the symbol of death ineffective, unless a creature removes the covering, in which case the symbol of death works normally."

So no, it doesn't end the spell.

PS. the symbol spells are completely broken, personally I'd houserule that the symbol has to be on an object of at least X size or weight (with X suitably large). Although I'd shy away from tying it to a stationary location (because of the problems of defining what is stationary).

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 05:48 AM
He both covered it and removed it from its prominent location, if it was ever in one to begin with. He also used the spell offensively, which explicitly may not be done.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-06, 05:53 AM
The bouncy ball is the prominent location, it can't be removed from itself.

He didn't use it offensively, he merely uncovered it (explicitly allowed). The rest is just flavor.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 09:20 AM
Dude, I know where this is coming from. You're just angry that the paladins got owned by a small rubberball. It's completely understandable. I'd feel the same way if Xykon had gotten owned by a stick with Cure Critical Wounds, or Heal was cast onto it.

.. Oh wait. Wands. Ya, forgot about that.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-06, 09:26 AM
Still don't know why a Sorcerer would ever use a Spell Known slot on a spell like this for specific, rare situations ... oh well. It's all for the plot.
No reason he couldn't have used a scroll.


So in this case would Paladins be immune to this part of the spell, or is this a way to get around Paladin fear immunity?
The running is a function of being insane and confused, not of being afraid. It is not a fear effect.


He both covered it and removed it from its prominent location, if it was ever in one to begin with.
I dunno. My Oxford American Dictionary defines "prominent" as "situtated so as to catch attention; noticeable." I'd say a pink ball bouncing all over the room catches attention and is noticeable.

Of course, the ball would be more prominent than the symbol itself...

AmberVael
2007-05-06, 09:48 AM
Of course, the ball would be more prominent than the symbol itself...
It depends on how large the symbol is.
Reading the symbol rules:

This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface.
Not on a flat surface.
A surface.
So technically the entire bouncing ball could be covered in one big magical rune.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 10:11 AM
You don't even have to be undead! Just be sure to cast "Mind Blank" every day.
You don't even have to do that. You're automatically immune - completely - to a Symbol you cast, regardless of other considerations. And you can make other people - say, your fellow party members - immune as well, at the time of casting, for the cost of some time. Mind Blank/death ward/whatever is for the person who comes by later.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 11:12 AM
Dude, I know where this is coming from. You're just angry that the paladins got owned by a small rubberball. It's completely understandable. I'd feel the same way if Xykon had gotten owned by a stick with Cure Critical Wounds, or Heal was cast onto it.

.. Oh wait. Wands. Ya, forgot about that.
Appeal to motive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive). Let me know when you feel that you can discuss this without resorting to impugning my character in lieu of evidence, please. (Further, my motivation is actually that this is retardedly game-breaking, not that that makes me automatically wrong either.)

And wands are a legitimate game mechanic. Bouncy rubber balls bearing spells that shouldn't be applicable to them and are explicitly forbidden from offensive use are not. I would have no complaints if his defeat of the Sapphire Guard involved a wand of harm and this thread was discussing that for whatever reason, though it would be odd, given that Xykon isn't a cleric.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-06, 12:10 PM
So technically the entire bouncing ball could be covered in one big magical rune.
But the rune itself wouldn't be particularly visible. Just the round, spherical object bouncing all over the place.

Say you have a yellow and red polka-dot ball bouncing all over the room. Can you describe for me what the pattern of the dots is like on the ball while it is in motion? So the ball may be prominent, but the symbol on it, regardless of how much surface area it takes up, would be less so.

Attilargh
2007-05-06, 12:18 PM
Can someone please tell me what constitutes as an offensive use of a spell?

Say we have a throne room in a dungeon. Our BBEG decides to put a trap in it, and chooses to utilise a Symbol of Insanity. He devices and elaborate machine that reveals the symbol at random 5"-by-5" squares of the room, and set the trigger so that occupying the square causes the spell to trigger. Would this be an offensive use?

Now, magically transport the trap to the enemy's throne room.

AtomicKitKat
2007-05-06, 12:37 PM
It's not really offensive. Offensive would be scribing it right in front of someone, and thrusting the paper in front of their eyes. :P

A bright pink ball flying at high speeds around the room definitely draws your attention, yes.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-06, 12:43 PM
From context, it means that you can't set off the triggering condition by moving the symbol rather than the subject. So hitting someone with a touch-activated symbol is no good (which is what both examples refer to). Unveiling a shield with a look-activated symbol still seems fine...they're the ones triggering it. It might also mean that moving the area of an activated symbol so that it hits someone as opposed to their moving into the area doesn't count, in the same way as certain spells prevent creatures from approaching but don't push them back.

Sticking it on a bouncy ball is probably cheating the prominent location thing, awesome as it is. Stick it on a carpet or tapestry or something and you're good.

henebry
2007-05-06, 01:00 PM
I think offensively means that the symbol must be passive until revealed and activated by the action of a third party.

Xykon clearly broke this implicit rule, and it's worth noting THIS is what made Xykon's use of the spell strike us all as clever and innovative. If a player came up with this plan, many of us DMs would applaud him and allow it -- especially if it were done as an off-the-cuff solution to a tough challenge. But then, when the player started trying to use it again and again as a "win button" we'd find out just how wrong we were to allow it in the first place.

Yahzi
2007-05-06, 01:40 PM
A small ball is not a prominent location. The spell should have failed right out.
That's my take. I don't see anywhere in the symbol description where it says you can put it on a portable object.

Otherwise... symbol my shield, baby!


Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe.
That pretty clearly means you can't cast it on a ball and throw it at your enemy.

Nice try, Xyklon... but no dice. :smallbiggrin:

Droodle
2007-05-06, 01:47 PM
Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe.
That pretty clearly means you can't cast it on a ball and throw it at your enemy.

Nice try, Xyklon... but no dice. :smallbiggrin:Uh...Xykon didn't throw it at the enemy. He threw it in the enemy's general vicinity.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 01:52 PM
That's my take. I don't see anywhere in the symbol description where it says you can put it on a portable object.

Otherwise... symbol my shield, baby!

Funny thing... it says it must be placed on a "surface" - no mention of it being stationary.

Even if you are unable to trigger it yourself, a simple Summoned Monster (or better - a Quickened Shadow Conjouration) can trigger it, no problems. You get to select any triggering condition you like. If you've got two in the party (both permanencied) you can set them to watch each other. So if you put, say, one on the Fighter's Shield and the other on the Fighter's Helmet (both fairly prominent), Permanency them, and set each to go off when the other expires (they glow when active - observable property) or a particular critter is summoned (to start the first one initially, or if they are suppressed for a time and need to be restarted for whatever reason) - poof! Always-on aura of X (I would advise Persuasion for most cases; even if the newly-entered party member isn't immune, it doesn't much matter - just becomes the caster's dearest friend).


That pretty clearly means you can't cast it on a ball and throw it at your enemy.

Nice try, Xyklon... but no dice. :smallbiggrin:
Used creatively, the Symbol line does become brokenly strong, yes.

AmberVael
2007-05-06, 02:41 PM
But the rune itself wouldn't be particularly visible. Just the round, spherical object bouncing all over the place.

Say you have a yellow and red polka-dot ball bouncing all over the room. Can you describe for me what the pattern of the dots is like on the ball while it is in motion? So the ball may be prominent, but the symbol on it, regardless of how much surface area it takes up, would be less so.
Ah, but only one person has to activate the rune. I take that as the person who has to read it in detail- otherwise it just has to be in your sight and obvious. As per the description, the freaking symbol is glowing. If anything, you're going to have a hard time making out the bouncing ball, not the symbol.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 04:01 PM
Heres a thought..

The entire argument about reading it is entirely moot. It never says the symbol must be read.


As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune...

Emphasis mine.

Why bother picking 'read' when you can pick 'look'?

Renegade Paladin: No. I'm not attacking your character, I just assumed that was why you were disallowing this idea.

Either way, the entire argument between us is pointless. By RAW, the symbol-on-a-ball can't be disallowed on any of your points.

Prominent Location: Cast it while standing in an empty meadow. Ergo, it's the only location.

Offensive Use: Simply unveil the ball and bounce it up and down in your hand. Set the trigger to look. You've done nothing offensive with it, they look all on their own.

Though you might disallow it on how you don't like it, that doesn't mean it is impossible. Just like I disallow the paladin base class because I don't like it. It's entirely your choice to do so.

Chosen
2007-05-06, 04:16 PM
Why bother picking 'read' when you can pick 'look'?

The problem i am having with the symbol used this way is that is taking advantage of the very vague wording. Look is very vague and could mean many things, for example so look mean a mere glance at the symbol would trigger it or would staring at it for a good 1/2 second trigger the symbol is the real question.

While i do think that the symbol would work in this way.

Also does anyone know of item/spell (not class ability) that would shield someone from this???

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-06, 04:24 PM
Prominent Location: Cast it while standing in an empty meadow. Ergo, it's the only location.
Even if you were in an infinite vacuum containing only you and the bouncy ball, I'm not sure the surface of the ball qualifies as a prominent location. It may be the most prominent location, not counting the surface of your body, but that doesn't necessarily make it prominent.

Also, it's specifically stated that the symbol can be read at a distance of 60 feet, and I can't imagine how that works with a (no more than) fist-sized chunk of rubber.

Other than that, I see no problem...

EvilElitest
2007-05-06, 04:42 PM
A small ball is not a prominent location. The spell should have failed right out.

Depends, how do you describe prominent. Sense the ball is covered with runes, i'd alllow it
from,
EE

malakim2099
2007-05-06, 04:55 PM
Uh...Xykon didn't throw it at the enemy. He threw it in the enemy's general vicinity.

So if I throw a gernade at an enemy's general vicinity... that's not offensive?

Just want to make sure about this. :smallamused:

Oh, and though it was answered ->


Dude, I know where this is coming from. You're just angry that the paladins got owned by a small rubberball. It's completely understandable. I'd feel the same way if Xykon had gotten owned by a stick with Cure Critical Wounds, or Heal was cast onto it.

.. Oh wait. Wands. Ya, forgot about that.

Let's see. Wands. In the PHB/DMG. Perfectly legal.

Putting a symbol on a bouncing ball like that, is at the very least, highly suspect, and if some PC tried it in a game I ran, I'd rule it illegal. Per the SRD under the description of symbol of death:


You can’t use a symbol of death offensively; for instance, a touch-triggered symbol of death remains untriggered if an item bearing the symbol of death is used to touch a creature. Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 06:57 PM
Also does anyone know of item/spell (not class ability) that would shield someone from this???

Mind Blank covers all the ones that are Mind-Affecting: Fear, Insanity, Persuasion, Sleep, and Stunning. Death Ward covers Death Effects: Symbol of Death. That leaves Symbol of Weakness and Symbol of Pain - neither of which are directly fatal (although the Symbol of Weakness can leave you at Str 0, Paralized). They all permit SR, so Greater Spell Immunity can cover the Symbol of Weakness and Symbol of Pain, provided they aren't Heightened to 9th.

Indon
2007-05-06, 07:08 PM
Okay, so the symbol would need to be visible, so my idea of putting it _inside_ a helmet doesn't work.

So you scribe the symbol on the front of your (otherwise very flamboyant) helmet, permanency it, and never need to particularly worry about low-level creatures again. If you want to deal with high-level ones, you could just put more symbols on other highly visible parts of your armor.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-06, 07:11 PM
So if I throw a gernade at an enemy's general vicinity... that's not offensive?AFAICS they were all within 60 feet anyway when he took it out, the whole bouncy thing is mostly flavor.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 07:11 PM
Renegade Paladin: No. I'm not attacking your character, I just assumed that was why you were disallowing this idea.
Two things. 1.) That's why the appeal to motive is a logical fallacy. 2.) Intentionally lying about something simply because you wish it so is an act of extreme weakness and dishonesty, and that's what you said I was doing.

Either way, the entire argument between us is pointless. By RAW, the symbol-on-a-ball can't be disallowed on any of your points.

Prominent Location: Cast it while standing in an empty meadow. Ergo, it's the only location.

Offensive Use: Simply unveil the ball and bounce it up and down in your hand. Set the trigger to look. You've done nothing offensive with it, they look all on their own.

Though you might disallow it on how you don't like it, that doesn't mean it is impossible. Just like I disallow the paladin base class because I don't like it. It's entirely your choice to do so.
One, by the RAW anything can be disallowed, period. Read the beginning of the DMG. Two, it's being used during an attack on an enemy position, which is offensive in nature, as opposed to defensive, i.e. defending your own place. Three, a small ball being a prominent location, as opposed to, say, the top of a doorway or center of a tapestry or wall, is extremely tenuous at best. Four, disallowing the only real inherently heroic class in a game of heroic fantasy? That's hilarious. :smallamused:

Yahzi
2007-05-06, 07:15 PM
Funny thing... it says it must be placed on a "surface" - no mention of it being stationary.
I know it doesn't say that, but really, that's what we all think of when we think the traditional uses of "Symbol." It's not a weapon you carry around and attack with; it is a defensive emplacement.

Noting that the RAW has confusing/ambiguous writing is like noting that the Pope is Catholic... :smallbiggrin:

PinkysBrain
2007-05-06, 07:15 PM
If he had not uncovered the symbol they would have attacked him, uncovering it was a defensive measure. Wee, wordplay.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 07:22 PM
I know it doesn't say that, but really, that's what we all think of when we think the traditional uses of "Symbol." It's not a weapon you carry around and attack with; it is a defensive emplacement.

Noting that the RAW has confusing/ambiguous writing is like noting that the Pope is Catholic... :smallbiggrin:
And yet...


In this case, “reading” the rune means any attempt to study it, identify it, or fathom its meaning. Throwing a cover over a symbol of death to render it inoperative triggers it if the symbol reacts to touch. You can’t use a symbol of death offensively; for instance, a touch-triggered symbol of death remains untriggered if an item bearing the symbol of death is used to touch a creature. Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe. (emphasis added).

How do you use a non-mobile object to touch a creature? Yet this is a specific case example in the spell from which the other Symbols inherit.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 07:23 PM
It may be the most prominent location, not counting the surface of your body, but that doesn't necessarily make it prominent.

You've done my job for me. If it's the -most- prominent, then it's -prominent-.

Renegade Paladin: I didn't attack your character. I never said liking Paladins and disagreeing because of that was a bad thing. Attacking me personally, however, is starting to get annoying.

One: Thats exactly what I said at the bottom of my post.
Two: Is it? I saw Xykon bouncing a ball. He didn't force anyone to look at it, he didn't throw it at anyone specifically. He didn't thrust it in someone's face. He simply displayed it. In fact, as Pinkysbrain pointed out, it can be considered entirely defensive.
Three: It was prominent at the time of the casting.
Four: Heroic fantasy? Epic fantasy, maybe. Heroic? Doesn't have to be.

EvilElitest
2007-05-06, 08:10 PM
The design intention of a Trap spell is that someone in the party do something they shouldn't that causes a trap to affect everyone nearby. Generally this means that a well prepared rogue would have a chance of detecting and avoiding the spell beforehand.

Xykon is using his superball in a manner that turns the Symbol into an AoE, and if that was the case the spell would need to be powered down to be consistant with other 8th level AoE spells, not a 9th level spells with the addition of triggers and a duration (ala Wail of the Banshee (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wailOfTheBanshee.htm), but with 20' more radius, permanent insanity instead of death, and a 10 minute/caster level duration.)

Seriously, if you allowed your players to do this then what makes Wail of the Banshee, Wierd, or Meteor Swarm more powerful than this and qualifies them for 9th level slots? Symbol of Insanity abused this way is perfect for descimating large groups of pretty much anything. It's not meant to be used, nor is it balanced as an attack spell.

it is to insane to be a good tatic, and costs to much xp
from,
EE

Indon
2007-05-06, 08:11 PM
And yet...

(emphasis added).

How do you use a non-mobile object to touch a creature? Yet this is a specific case example in the spell from which the other Symbols inherit.

If it were possible to use it offensively with a trigger of "look" (Putting the symbol on the sword and then swinging it, after all, a blade swinging at your head is very prominent), then why would they need to use an example of using it offensively with a trigger of "touch"?

PinkysBrain
2007-05-06, 08:16 PM
it is to insane to be a good tatic, and costs to much xp
from,
EE
At high level a permanent symbol is affordable, and putting one on your armor or shield is in fact a very good tactic (one I think should be houseruled into oblivion, but that is neither here nor there).

EvilElitest
2007-05-06, 08:41 PM
At high level a permanent symbol is affordable, and putting one on your armor or shield is in fact a very good tactic (one I think should be houseruled into oblivion, but that is neither here nor there).

It is still not a good tatic, insanity is only a good tatic when
a) no body else is around
B) You have not allies
C)Against low level enemies
It is to unpreditable, so really you should only use it when desperate
And renagade paladin, you know me, we've worked together before, but i'm going to have to disagree with you here. Xykon's action was "throwing bouncy ball"
THe fact that it was covered with runes is a moot point, he still simple threw the ball. It's trigger was one person reading it/Xykon touching it, and it would trigger every time it bounced. I see what you mean about it being a cheap underhanded tatic, but what will you do
Anyways, i'd just like to say

Why would you ban the paladin class? It is one of hte best out their/
from,
EE

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 08:55 PM
Two reasons: Paladins suck, pretty hard. In Core, they're a notch above the fighter. No class should have it's crutch be that it's better than fighter.

And the other: I hate paladins.

EvilElitest. I really suggest re-reading the rules on the Symbol spells. You can designate any number of creatures to be 'immune' from the symbol. And it's a valid tactic at any level. A high INT wizard would easily be able to carry around a Symbol of Insanity written on the front of his book and use it as a final line of defense.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-06, 09:05 PM
You can keep it covered up when there are others around. You can attune it to your allies ... as for the efficiency and predictability, sure you can't expect it to be a win button. We don't have dramatic license on our side like Xykon (that paralyzing touch had decent odds of failing too). Confused enemies are still better than non confused ones though and you can have other symbols as well, it's not an either or situation.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 09:37 PM
So you hate paragons of good? Duly noted. Anyway, on to business.

If I wanted to attack you personally, there would be no doubt as to the intent; I'm not subtle about that sort of thing. In the meantime, you were calling my integrity into question, which is far more offensive than any insult anyone could muster.

You saw Xykon bouncing a ball while engaged in attacking someone else's position. Look up what offensive means when used as a noun.

How do you know it was prominent at the time of casting? We didn't see anything to that effect. Besides, that doesn't matter; what matters is whether it's prominent at the time of activation. Otherwise, covering it so that it may not be seen wouldn't matter.

Middle Snu
2007-05-06, 09:52 PM
I would agree with the pro-symbol people, except for one point:

As per RAW, the spell cannot be used offensively. Note that this is not a logical constraint, but an arbitrary one.

Offensive: 1 a : making attack : AGGRESSIVE b : of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons> c : of or relating to an attempt to score in a game or contest; also : of or relating to a team in possession of the ball or puck

(www.m-w.com)

Note that the distinction here is primarily one of purpose. The difference between using a spell on the sword and then hitting someone with it, and putting it on the sword to defend it is one of purpose

Xycon is definitely using the spell to attack; in fact, this is the whole point of the casting: to attack the paladins. Whether or not he is using an attack action, or making any aggressive action is irrelevant. He is still attacking the paladins, in their home territory, and using the symbol spell in this capacity. As per RAW, it is therefore disallowed.

Not to say it isn't awesome, of course.

P.S.
Attack
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words <a speech attacking her political enemies>
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously <plants attacked by aphids>

He is certainly acting "injuriously" on the Paladins, and is also "setting upon" them.

FdL
2007-05-06, 09:52 PM
An offensive use of a magic symbol is any use which forces the activation of the symbol on someone. The normal, passive use is that is the target who comes to the symbol, not the opposite which is what Xykon did.

Rules like this must be analized in the light of the purpose they were designed for, otherwise you're just rule-lawyering and looking for a loophole. A Symbol of X is supposed to be A TRAP. Period. That's what the authors had in mind when they formulated the wording of the rules, and that's how they have to be interpreted.

Besides, no one has pointed that a bouncy rubber ball is way outside of the setting of a medieval roleplaying fantasy game, and D&D in particular. So Xykon's strategy was meant to be funny and shocking, to make us all hate him for his devious plans and the ease with which he executes them. But that's a plot device, it has a purpose within the narrative, so although it's a stretch, we can take the strategy as valid. Within the narrative only.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 09:55 PM
Paladin, I'm gonna square with you man. I don't know you, so how could I call your integrity into question by making a comment about wither you liked or did not like paladins? That, sir, does not make sense.

However, you did indirectly call me a coward and a liar. If those are not personal attacks, I do not know what is. And now you're attempting to say that it was I whom attacked you. I ask you to refrain from making such claims, since I never said anything about your taste in paladins being a good thing or a bad thing.

Further, good is subjective. There is no paragon of something that changes from person to person. Just like rules interpretations, there can be no uniform unless the ruling is set in stone and has no loopholes. As such, here are the problems with your argument.

One: Xykon didn't use the ball offensively. In fact, when using the ball he was attacked. If anything, this further proves that it was a defensive measure, not an offensive one.

Two: How do you know it wasn't? Don't bother grasping for straws when we're both on equal footing when it comes to wither the spell was cast at the time or not. Besides that, this isn't about what Xykon did -exactly-, this is about what Xykon did being applied to a real D&D game, where-in which casting it when the ball is a prominent location is entirely plausible.

Three: Does it now? Where did you find that rule at? Now, lets look at how it was prominent at the time of the unveiling.. Xykon pulled it out of his robe and held it up. A lich holding a little rubber ball that is practically impossible to make in any medieval world without the assistance of magic while an entire squadron of paladins stares him down. Sounds pretty prominent to me.

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-06, 10:14 PM
It wasn't the comment about whether I liked or did not like paladins. You said that I would use an intentionally false argument due to my liking paladins, though apparently you weren't aware of the full implications of what you said, which I suppose is understandable. You're leaving out that first part. There is a reason that the appeal to motive is a subset of the ad hominem circumstantial. If you're going to engage in debate, I humbly and sincerely suggest you learn the rules of logic. They're generally useful in any case, whether you make a habit of this or not.

Now then, to leave all that business behind and get to the actual issue here: How is an attack upon an enemy fortification not an offensive in the true military sense? And how is the use of the symbol in the course of the attack not an offensive use? There are reams of printed rules for the system documenting attacks that are definitely offensive in nature but do not require an attack roll; saying otherwise is a bad case of semantics mongering. And we know that magic perceives and responds to that sort of thing.

Take invisibility. If you cast a fireball at your enemies, that action ends the spell. If you just fire one up into the air, however, it does not. It is the same when you just twirl a sword in the air as opposed to trying to stab someone with it. The magic responds to the intent of its subject and reacts accordingly. Since we know that magic has this capability, why would a spell that specifically disallows itself from being used as an attack not do the same?

Further, a little rubber ball, while attention-grabbing, is not prominent. Not that this actually matters, seeing how using a symbol in any form of attack is right out in any case, but it isn't big enough to clearly see the symbol, even if you leave out the admittedly subjective argument that thematically the symbol is supposed to be several square inches in area.

Incidentally, in default D&D, alignments are not subjective in the least; they're concrete universal forces. That doesn't really have a whole lot to do with this thread, though.

Chosen
2007-05-06, 10:53 PM
This is to Zero and renegade: Calm down both of you, let us keep this civil.

Though i do agree with FdL on this one. Offensive in this instance means you can't force someone to look at the symbol to activate it. So in order for Xykon to get the paladins to look at the ball would either take a bluff check or fient action to make them look at the ball under their own free will.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-05-06, 10:53 PM
Zero, Paladin, calm down you guys- I'd really rather not see the two of you get moderated. O_o

I'll have to agree with the pro-ball people though. I think a little pink bouncing ball would be pretty noticeable, and if it has a "look" activation, in a room full of that many paladin's SOMEONE is bound to roll a 20 on their spot check- thus noticing the runes on the little ball, and thus setting it off.

If I was the DM there, I'd allow it the first time, giving them bonus XP but not XP for any of those paladins, just the highest CR one... Then not allow it again.

ImperiousLeader
2007-05-06, 10:58 PM
Still don't know why a Sorcerer would ever use a Spell Known slot on a spell like this for specific, rare situations ... oh well. It's all for the plot.

He may have emulated by casting Wish.

Maelstrom
2007-05-06, 11:10 PM
One: Xykon didn't use the ball offensively. In fact, when using the ball he was attacked. If anything, this further proves that it was a defensive measure, not an offensive one.

Hmmm, I suppose if he planned on playing Racquetball with the paladins and inadvertently pulled out his Trapped Bouncy Ball of Insane Silliness, I suppose this would work.

But somehow I doubt that was his motivation.

I also have issues with the way this rule on Symbol of Insanity is Written. Why would they have rules on both "look" activation and "read/analyze" activation, after all,to "read/analyze" you'd obviously *have* to look. I think the writer's motivation here was the read/analyze...

As for rolling a "20" for a spot check, I doubt it. I would put the spot check for most of those in the room above a 20 to notice the rune on a diminutive object (not to notice the ball itself). A '20' on a skill check *is not* and auto-success, after all. But yes, their *is* quite the possibility of someone taking note (but refer above, I do not think the spell should be just plain looking at the symbol without a save to avert gaze first...)

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-06, 11:54 PM
Paladin, I'm going to let everything else slide. I don't care enough to argue about something that this thread doesn't involve.

Ok, you say magic responds on intent. Lets use the same spell of Invisibility. Lets say I use it to scribe Explosive Runes on a sticky-note. I then drop that note in front of my intended victim and run. Now, my intent is to have them read it. But is reading it an offensive action in and of itself? No. The fact that theres going to be a 6d6 force explosion before they get half-way through the word Explosive is irrelevant, because my intent isn't to cast Explosive Runes on them.

By saying magic responds on intentions and not on base, concrete laws, then you're opening up a whole can of worms about interpretation. What would you rather have, one Ball'o'Doom or invincible and invisible sword-princesses ala Exalted?

As for noticing the rune.. You don't have to read it. You don't even have to see it clearly. You just have to look at it.

Maelstrom: The "read" versus "look" triggers are for more devious and less easily triggered traps(therefore lowered CRs). A Symbol of Death on the door with the trigger of "look" is more deadly than a Symbol of Death in a long-forgotten, badly translated children's book imported from Yugoslavia sitting in the back of your local library with the trigger of "read".

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-07, 12:06 AM
You've done my job for me. If it's the -most- prominent, then it's -prominent-.
Um, I disagree. Suppose, instead of an empty infinite void we had an infinite void dotted with 1 inch square tiles, evenly distributed, and a single 2 inch square tile. The two inch tile is surely the most prominent feature in the entire space...but would you actually call it prominent? The spot check to recognize that it even existed would be substantial at 60 feet.

That's only a little less prominent than your bouncy ball.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-07, 07:07 AM
That's only a little less prominent than your bouncy ball.
I, uh, believe the point was semantic.

How can something be "most prominent" or "less prominent" unless it is first prominent? By saying that something is less promient, you admit that it is indeed prominent, just not to the same degree as another object.

In any case, the wording of the spell doesn't even care about degree. It just has to be prominent. It doesn't have to be more prominent than anything else. Just prominent.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-07, 08:53 AM
I, uh, believe the point was semantic.

How can something be "most prominent" or "less prominent" unless it is first prominent? By saying that something is less promient, you admit that it is indeed prominent, just not to the same degree as another object.

In any case, the wording of the spell doesn't even care about degree. It just has to be prominent. It doesn't have to be more prominent than anything else. Just prominent.
As I perhaps failed to adequately point out, that isn't correct semantics. The exact same logic would have it that anything 'more big' or 'less big' than something else (that is, anything with a size) must clearly be 'big'. Likewise, 'prominent' does not mean 'has a degree of prominence that can be compared to other things', it means 'at least as prominent as some (unspecified) threshold'.

Sulecrist
2007-05-07, 09:09 AM
Um, I disagree. Suppose, instead of an empty infinite void we had an infinite void dotted with 1 inch square tiles, evenly distributed, and a single 2 inch square tile. The two inch tile is surely the most prominent feature in the entire space...but would you actually call it prominent? The spot check to recognize that it even existed would be substantial at 60 feet.

That's only a little less prominent than your bouncy ball.

A two inch tile among one inch tiles isn't very prominent, no.

What about a bright pink bouncy ball in an infinite void dotted with one inch tiles? If it can grab your attention from sixty feet away, it'd pass in my book. If it can't, it won't. It's as simple as that.

If it had been a golf ball in a snowstorm I'd have failed it. This isn't, however, a golf ball in a snowstorm. And apparently it wasn't at the time of casting, either.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-07, 01:13 PM
Likewise, 'prominent' does not mean 'has a degree of prominence that can be compared to other things', it means 'at least as prominent as some (unspecified) threshold'.
And that would be the crux of the problem, wouldn't it? 'Prominent' is really a subjective measure. That makes it useless as a rule to judge anything by. What's prominent in one situation is not prominent in another. Or it can even be the same situation, but different observers measuring different degrees of prominence.

But, one things for sure, compared to an infinite void, with or without tiles, nothing can really be considered prominent. At least when taking the entire void in at once.

Indon
2007-05-08, 07:24 AM
And that would be the crux of the problem, wouldn't it? 'Prominent' is really a subjective measure. That makes it useless as a rule to judge anything by.

I'd say it provides a DM with a great excuse to go, "Well, that's a stupid, unintended, breaking use of the skill... and it's not prominent enough to work, sorry."

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-08, 08:00 AM
Know what amazes me most about many of the replies here?

The staggering amount of people with telepathy who can read the designers minds. Incredible! When did you guys find out you can read people's minds?

Now, lets see more arguments about intent! :smallamused: I'm positively thrilled.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-08, 09:54 AM
I'm not sure the subjectivity of 'prominent' can be stretched that far, but something that certainly can't:
Until it is triggered, the symbol of death is inactive (though visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet).
Can you read the surface of a bouncy ball at 60 feet? I really don't think so.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-08, 09:55 AM
I'm not sure the subjectivity of 'prominent' can be stretched that far, but something that certainly can't:
Can you read the surface of a bouncy ball at 60 feet? I really don't think so.

Look =/= Read

The trigger can be "look at". Reading doesn't even figure into it.

Not to mention that the ball isn't 60' away.

Yahzi
2007-05-08, 10:36 AM
(emphasis added).
You're right - it specifically describes casting the symbol on an item.

Arrrrrgh. That's just silly.

On the other hand, maybe we are going at this wrong. Maybe permanent symbols should be the rule, and every army has some. In the Jack Vance setting that D&D magic sprung from, that would just be par for the course.


Edit: Check it out... Symbol of Pain has no saving throw.

I want to make a high-level campaign setting that actually implements all the crazy idiot breaking things players do. I think the key is having only a few high-level people. So one city has a wizard: their army has Fabricated MW items, Symbols all over the place, etc. But with only a few wizards, and miles of monster-infested wilderness between each city, maybe the next city is completely different.

(That's the world Vance had in mind - not a cohesive society, like medieval Europe, but many isolated societies.)

Yakk
2007-05-08, 04:19 PM
Hmmm, I suppose if he planned on playing Racquetball with the paladins and inadvertently pulled out his Trapped Bouncy Ball of Insane Silliness, I suppose this would work.

But somehow I doubt that was his motivation.

I also have issues with the way this rule on Symbol of Insanity is Written. Why would they have rules on both "look" activation and "read/analyze" activation, after all,to "read/analyze" you'd obviously *have* to look. I think the writer's motivation here was the read/analyze...

Because symbols of death are expensive. Sometimes you don't want them to trigger if someone just glances at them, but rather only when someone reads them or touches them.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-08, 05:09 PM
Look =/= Read

The trigger can be "look at". Reading doesn't even figure into it.

Not to mention that the ball isn't 60' away.
If you read the quote in my post, you would see that that trigger mechanisms aren't the point. Here it is again:

Until it is triggered, the symbol of death is inactive (though visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet).
This is stipulated in the text of the Symbol of Death spell.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-08, 05:13 PM
If you read the quote in my post, you would see that that trigger mechanisms aren't the point. Here it is again:

This is stipulated in the text of the Symbol of Death spell.

Then I can't say I understand what your point is.:smallconfused:

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-08, 05:16 PM
The spell text says the symbol is legible at 60 feet. There is no symbol in the world that would be legible at 60 feet written on a bouncy ball. That is my point.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-08, 05:20 PM
The spell text says the symbol is legible at 60 feet. There is no symbol in the world that would be legible at 60 feet written on a bouncy ball. That is my point.

Yes but isn't it a moot point if the bouncy ball was never 60' away in the first place? And isn't it a moot point if Symbol-of-insanity doesn't require it to be legible?

Jack_Simth
2007-05-08, 06:00 PM
You're right - it specifically describes casting the symbol on an item.

Arrrrrgh. That's just silly.

To be fair, in order for a traveling Wizard to make use of it, the Wizard wants it on an item - most noteably, a spellbook. Still using it as a trap in that instance, mind.


On the other hand, maybe we are going at this wrong. Maybe permanent symbols should be the rule, and every army has some. In the Jack Vance setting that D&D magic sprung from, that would just be par for the course.


Edit: Check it out... Symbol of Pain has no saving throw.

Look closer. It's just like Symbol of Death, except X and it doesn't override the Saving Throw line. So it's Fort Negates, inherited from Symbol of Death. Unlike Symbol of Persuasion, which has "Will Negates", overriding the "Fort Negates" of Symbol of Death.


I want to make a high-level campaign setting that actually implements all the crazy idiot breaking things players do. I think the key is having only a few high-level people. So one city has a wizard: their army has Fabricated MW items, Symbols all over the place, etc. But with only a few wizards, and miles of monster-infested wilderness between each city, maybe the next city is completely different.

(That's the world Vance had in mind - not a cohesive society, like medieval Europe, but many isolated societies.)
You could. Just be warned: You're liable to have a magocracy of some form or another (wether direct or puppet, mages will end up ruling if you've got high level ones running around loose to follow their whims).

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-08, 06:09 PM
Actually how SoD is written the symbol coudl be 1 millimeter in diameter and be perfectly legible at 60 feet away.

An affect of the SoD spell is that the symbol is legible at 60 feet.

You are mixing up cause and effect Ulzgoroth. The cause of the symbol beign legible at 60 feet is the effect caused by SoD. The symbol being legible at 60 feet is not a prerequisite for casting SoD.

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-08, 06:31 PM
Yep, that's why it says "the symbol IS" instead of "the symbol MUST BE"